mortgagee clause (South Carolina) · Go Syfert
← South Carolina issues

mortgagee clause in South Carolina

6 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1912–2000 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by South Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
National Commercial Bank & Trust Co. v. Jamestown Mutual Insurancegreen
nysupct · 1972 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
2 sentences

1997Co., 70 Misc.2d 701 , 334 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1001 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1972)(“A fire insurance contract endorsed with the standard mortgagee clause creates an independent contract for the insurance of the mortgagee’s interest.”); Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. Charles S. Martin Distrib.

1997Co., 70 Misc.2d 701 , 334 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1001 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1972)(“A fire insurance contract endorsed with the standard mortgagee clause creates an independent contract for the insurance of the mortgagee’s interest.”); Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. Charles S. Martin Distrib.

11
AETNA LIFE & CASUALTY COMPANY v. Charles S. Martin Distributing Company, Inc.green
gactapp · 1969 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
2 sentences

1997Co., 120 Ga.App. 133 , 169 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1969)(Under a New York standard mortgagee clause, the fact that insured had wilfully and fraudulently burned her property in order to collect the insurance thereon, does not bar mortgagee’s claim to the proceeds of the policy.).

1997Co., 120 Ga.App. 133 , 169 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1969)(Under a New York standard mortgagee clause, the fact that insured had wilfully and fraudulently burned her property in order to collect the insurance thereon, does not bar mortgagee’s claim to the proceeds of the policy.).

11
Kirton v. Howardgreen
sc · 1926 · cited in 1 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
1 sentence

1989Willard v. Finch, 123 S. C. 56, 116 S. E. 96 (1923); See Kirton v. Howard, 137 S. C. 11, 134 S. E. 859 (1926) {bona fide purchaser for value without notice). 4 The record does not reflect when disbursement was made but the inferences are that they occurred before November 1985. 5 Act No. 635,1988 S. C.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Hunt green
sc · 1997
2 sentences

2000Id. at 93 , 488 S.E.2d at 341 .

2000Id. at 93 , 488 S.E.2d at 341 .

12000–2000
State v. . Williams green
nc · 1923
1 sentence

1989Willard v. Finch, 123 S. C. 56, 116 S. E. 96 (1923); See Kirton v. Howard, 137 S. C. 11, 134 S. E. 859 (1926) {bona fide purchaser for value without notice). 4 The record does not reflect when disbursement was made but the inferences are that they occurred before November 1985. 5 Act No. 635,1988 S. C.

11989–1989
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Franklin Fire Insurance neutral
· 1936
1 sentence

1984Prudential v. Franklin, supra, while not addressing Walker , refined and extended our rule in these cases by recognizing that there is a condition-precedent prescribed in securing the mortgagee’s independent status, i.e., the payment of the premium when demanded by the insurer.

11984–1984
Walker v. Queen Insurance Co. green
sc · 1926
2 sentences

1965Walker v. Queen Insurance Company , 136 S.C. 144 , 134 S.E. 263 , 52 A.L.R. 259 .

1965Walker v. Queen Insurance Company , 136 S.C. 144 , 134 S.E. 263 , 52 A.L.R. 259 .

11965–1965
Walker v. Killian neutral
sc · 1902
1 sentence

1912The mortgage provided that on default, the mortgagee might seize and sell the property, and that upon the sale “he shall apply the proceeds of such sale, after deducting all expenses and charges, including attorney’s fees, toward the payment and discharge of the indebtedness,” etc. Under a similar oontract, it was held in Walker v. 'Killian, 62 S. C. 482, 40 S. E. 887 , that the mortgagee could not claim the fees if he foreclosed by action and not by seizure under the power.

11912–1912

Where else courts name it

NY 44 (1823–2005) PA 26 (1857–2014) NC 8 (1924–1981) IL 8 (1933–2021) CA 7 (1929–2001) IA 7 (1909–1990) SC 6 (1912–2000) MI 6 (1905–2022) NJ 6 (1910–1994) AL 6 (1880–2013) CT 4 (1941–1993) OK 4 (1925–1929) MS 4 (1970–2023) GA 4 (1921–1930) LA 4 (1971–1987) OR 3 (1915–1989) MO 3 (1910–2000) WV 3 (1883–1995) AZ 3 (1931–1992) IN 3 (1878–1932) NM 2 (1938–1939) MN 2 (1916–1932) ME 2 (1903–2024) TX 2 (1922–1981) MD 2 (1928–1968) NH 2 (1831–2013) VT 2 (1911–1963) AR 2 (1972–1986) WY 2 (1926–1961)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check